RELIGIOUS FANATICS ARE AMONG THE MOST VICIOIUS CHILD ABUSERS IN THE WORLD

Sunday, June 20, 2010

Deposition paints an unflattering portrait of Mahony

Deposition paints an unflattering portrait of MahonyExchanges between attorney and cardinal about priest convicted of molestation reveal a failure to take responsibility.

Cardinal Roger Mahony looks to the rear of a courtroom as victims of abuse by priests were asked to stand during a 2007 trial. (Al Seib/Los Angeles / July 15, 2007)

June 20, 2010

I've said many times that Cardinal Roger Mahony should stop resisting the release of church documents in the sex abuse scandal. But after a Mahony deposition in a molestation case was made public by the courts last week at the request of The Times, I can see why the cardinal has fought to keep things under wraps.

The deposition involved former priest Michael Baker, who is now serving a 10-year sentence for molestation. After he confessed to Mahony in 1986 that he had molested two boys, Mahony sent him to one of the drive-through "treatment" centers used by the church back then. After that, the archdiocese shuffled Baker around to different parishes — some with elementary schools.

Despite reports that Baker continued to have contact with minors in violation of church orders, the archdiocese did nothing to stop the priest, who went on to molest other kids. You can see why this one troubles Mahony. But is he troubled about the suffering of the victims or the reflection on him?

Consider this exchange between the cardinal and attorney John Manly, who was representing one of Baker's many victims:

Manly: I mean, you would agree with me that the first thing any priest should do … when you learn that a priest has molested a child is call the police, right?

Mahony: Not necessarily.

It's not a difficult question. A child is abused; that's a crime, so you call the police and rush to the aid of the minor, right?

Not Mahony. And despite admitting mistakes, he continues to blame his failure on the times, the circumstances, the procedures that were in place. He'd have you think that 1986 was 100 years ago, and the terms of moral responsibility were different. When he's asked the same question again by the disbelieving lawyer, his answer begins:

"If you want to review the suspected child abuse form, you'll see that the very top little section of the form says name of mandated reporter, title of mandated reporter…"

It goes on like that, with Mahony suggesting the form couldn't be filled out because the names of the victims and their parents were not known. So he didn't call the police and he didn't call the parish where Baker was living to warn of other potential victims.

Manly: I take it at that point you instructed your staff to try and find the kids?

Mahony: No, I did not.

Huh? You know that children have been horribly violated by one of your priests, and you don't move heaven and earth to find them and get them help?

The cardinal said he didn't know their names and was under the impression they might be illegal immigrants who had returned to Mexico. So couldn't he have demanded that Baker tell him their names and where to find them?

"It's not hard to find boys like this," says attorney Lynne Cadigan, who in 2000 negotiated a $1.3-million settlement for two brothers she believes to have been those very victims.

In his deposition, Mahony said Baker admitted to one or two instances of "touching" the boys. But in Mahony's 2004 report to parishioners on the sex abuse scandal, he said Baker indicated there was a "relationship" with the boys from 1978 to 1985, beginning when they were 5 and 7.

In fact, Cadigan said, the boys' mother worked at the parish where they were molested. Baker knew that, and continued molesting the boys for years, according to Cadigan, in Los Angeles, Mexico and Arizona.

In his deposition, Mahony said he established a sexual abuse advisory council in 1992 to use as a sounding board on such cases. The man he put in charge was someone he'd known from various Catholic social events: L.A. County Superior Court Judge Richard Byrne.

In his own deposition last October, Byrne — now retired from his job as presiding judge — sounded like a Mahony clone. Even in cases in which he thought a crime had been committed, Byrne said he didn't believe anyone on the advisory council ever called police.

Manly: I mean, did that ever even cross your mind?

Byrne: No…But I did assume that whatever needed to be done was being done. I had that belief in the archdiocese and the system.

Unfortunately, such faith didn't do the victims any good. And pardon me, but if the cardinal wanted expert advice on whether crimes had been committed, he should have gone to the police or the district attorney, not to handpicked loyalists with no authority.

When I asked to speak to Mahony about his deposition last week, one of his attorneys said I hadn't been fair to the cardinal in the past, that I'd focused on Mahony's mistakes without mentioning "how those mistakes led to a complete reformation of how child abuse allegations were handled by the archdiocese."

Thanks for the advice, but my duty isn't to the cardinal. It's to the victims of sexual abuse and to ferreting out the truth about an institution that was putting its own image before their welfare.

As for the archdiocese's reformation, is there any reason to believe that without lawsuits, media pressure and the threat of criminal prosecution, there would have been any changes at all? And would there have been the $660-million payout in 2007, when the archdiocese settled 500 cases of clergy sex abuse?

No comments:

About This Blog

For over forty years, delusional and lying Christians have accused Satanists of committing all manner of atrocities toward children without any evidence. This is ironic considering the pervasive occurrence of prolonged systematic child abuse among the various Christian churches and denominations, and among others abusing positions of trust in the Jewish and Islamic Synagogues and Mosques.

Enough hypocrisy. We all know who the sick, deranged child abusers really are: the sanctimonious frauds of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions.

In fact, you could go so far as to say that child abuse IS a Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition!

STOP THE MADNESS.

This blog is maintained by Reverend Magda Graham of the Church of Satan.

The 9th Satanic Rule of the Earth

"Do not harm little children."--Anton Szandor LaVeyFounder of The Church of Satan

From THE SATANIC BIBLE

"Under NO circumstances would a Satanist sacrifice any animal or baby! For centuries, propagandists of the right-hand path have been prattling over the supposed sacrifices of small children and voluptuous maidens at the hands of diabolists. It would be thought that anyone reading or hearing of these heinous accounts would immediately question their authenticity, taking into consideration the biased sources of the stories. On the contrary, as with all "holy" lies which are accepted without reservation, this assumed modus operandi of the Satanists persists to this day!

There are sound and logical reasons why the Satanists could not perform such sacrifices. Man, the animal, is the godhead to the Satanist. The purest form of carnal existence reposes in the bodies of animals and human children who have not grown old enough to deny themselves their natural desires. They can perceive things that the average adult human can never hope to.

Therefore, the Satanist holds these beings in a sacred regard, knowing he can learn much from these natural magicians of the world."